Tampere University of Technology

Social media -based value creation and business models

CitationKetonen-Oksi, S., Jussila, J. J., & Kärkkäinen, H. (2016). Social media -based value creation and businessmodels. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(8), 1820-1838. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2015-0199Year2016

VersionEarly version (pre-print)

Link to publicationTUTCRIS Portal (http://www.tut.fi/tutcris)

Published inIndustrial Management and Data Systems

DOI10.1108/IMDS-05-2015-0199

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact cris.tau@tuni.fi, and we will remove accessto the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date:10.03.2020

Social Media-Based Value Creation and Business Models Abstract Purpose – The purpose of the study is to create an organized picture of the current understanding of social media-based value creation and business models. Design/methodology/approach – Following the process model presented by Fink (2005), a systematic literature review of academic journal articles published between 2005 and 2014 was conducted. The research was grounded on the theoretical foundations of service-dominant logic. Findings – This study offers detailed descriptions and analyses of the major social media mechanisms affecting how value is created in social media-based value networks and the kinds of impacts social media can have on present and future business models. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to academic research literature on business organizations, excluding all studies related to public and non-profit organizations. Practical implications – Attention is given to developing an in-depth understanding of the functions and concrete value creation mechanisms of social media-based co-creation within the different organizational processes (e.g., in product and service development and customer services) and to updating the related practices and knowledge. Originality/value – This study provides new insight into the challenges related to research models and frameworks commonly used for observing value creation, thus highlighting the need for further studies and updates. Keywords Value creation, Value co-creation, Value capture, Social media, Business model, Service-dominant logic Paper type Literature review Introduction

The rapid growth of Web 2.0 technologies and the breakthrough of social media applications (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Singaraju et al, 2016), in particular, have undoubtedly revolutionized the ways in which individuals share content and interact in various previously unreachable and globally distributed social communities and networks. Moreover, recently developed methods of collecting, monitoring, analyzing, and visualizing social media-related conversations and interactions have created a number of new research opportunities and challenges, resulting in huge possibilities for organizations interested in transforming their businesses or pursuing new innovations and services using social media data (Jussila, 2015; Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier, 2013; Mithas et al., 2013). For example, the use of advanced social media analytics tools and analysis techniques has enabled companies to access real-time data, which can then be used to extract useful patterns and intelligence on, for example, customer behavior (see Fan and Yan, 2015; He et al., 2015; Hussain and Vatrapu, 2014).

As a result of these advances, the boundary between the users and producers of value has grown increasingly blurred (Bechmann and Lomborg, 2013), and the roles and impacts of actors in value networks (see Frow et al, 2015; Palo and Tähtinen, 2013) have changed accordingly. Many past and present management concepts have been widely criticized, and the need for new kinds of

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

socio-technological business model concepts has been recognized (Kitchin, 2014; Singaraju et al, 2016; Vatrapu, 2013). At its simplest, human interaction is applied in social commerce, which refers to social networks that influence the making of shopping decisions (Wang and Zhang, 2012).

The challenge is getting even bigger as companies need to manage the growing shift from product-based to service-based business strategies (see e.g. Grönroos and Voima, 2012; Maglio and Spohrer, 2013; Nilsson and Ballantyne, 2014; Vargo et al., 2008). Although promising results have been made in, for example, the automotive industry (see Godlevskaja et al., 2011), industrial engineering (see Author et al., 2016), and retail (He et al., 2015), a lot of companies are still struggling in deploying and managing their social media interactions and networks (Frow et al, 2015; Singaraju et al, 2016). It seems that the uncertainties of investment returns on social media activities (Tørning et al., 2015) hinder companies from realizing the fundamental changes of how the real-time flows of social media networks can (should) be used for nowcasting (Choi and Varian 2012; Lamboni and Christiani, 2012; An and Weber, 2015) and predicting customer and market behaviors and expectations Lazer et al, 2009; Tuarob and Tucker, 2013).

However, little is known about the processes, mechanisms and methods having an impact on social media enabled value co-creation in practice (Singaraju et al., 2016). The research literature is still fragmented into case studies of various micro-level study contexts and, thus, fails to offer a generalizable, in-depth understanding of how companies with different business logics and alternative markets can create value through social media. A huge gap exists between potential and actual use of social media for real-time business and competitive analysis. (He et al., 2015; Kietzmann et al., 2011; Spaulding, 2010; Wang et al., 2015).

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the major social media mechanisms affecting how value is created in social media-based value networks and the kinds of impacts social media can have on present and future business models, this paper addresses the research gap by providing a systematic literature review of social media-based value creation and business models. The research question was defined as follows:

What are the roles and impacts of social media in novel business-related value co-creation and business models, and in what ways does the current academic literature address these roles and impacts? Considering the growing interest in service-based business strategies and by thus adopting

business models as an umbrella concept under which value is both created and consumed, this study grounds itself in the theoretical foundations of service-dominant logic. That is, the research was constructed based on the idea of perceiving value creation as a process in which companies, customers, and organizations are seen as interdependent actors that change their roles from one situation to another and in which the value of services is uniquely determined by the beneficiary (see Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p. 87; 2008; 2009). Due to the differences between the various social media-related approaches and potentials for value creation of business organizations and public organizations, the research was limited to business organizations only.

The structure of the paper is divided into five main sections. First, we introduce and define the theoretical grounds and central concepts of the study. Second, we describe research methodology, including the literature review approach we used to collect our review articles. Third, we introduce our study results and analysis of the current use of different methods and theories in generating knowledge about the use of social media in value creation and business modeling. Fourth, we present the major conclusions of the study and provide guidelines for future research, thus enhancing our understanding of the roles, impacts, and potential of social media use in business-related value creation and business model innovations.

Background and key concepts

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

The service-dominant logic perspective of value creation Strongly based on the notion of companies as value creators and customers as value users, many past and present business models have been developed from the viewpoints of significantly product-oriented companies. The value creation activities have been developed accordingly to include several independent functions, such as articulating the contents of the value propositions, identifying proper market segments, specifying revenue generation mechanisms, defining the structures of the required value chains, and distributing the complementary assets needed to support the company’s position in the value chain. The focus has been on estimating cost structures and potential profits, as well as on gaining and maintaining competitive advantage over rivals (Chesbrough, 2010; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002).

Instead of seeing companies solely as the producers of tangible goods, the service-dominant logic seeks to understand the logic and wellbeing of the entire service ecosystem. Based on ecosystem level actor-to-actor networks, the value is dynamically co-created through closely collaborating networks, which are filled with weak and often invisible ties (see Granovetter, 1983) among the different network members. Hence, the actual value co-creation takes place within the different resource integrating processes and activities, emphasizing the role of resource integrators as the creators of intangible resources that are beneficial for the entire value network. The resources can be either tangible or intangible and internally controlled or externally drawn on for support, thus never highlighting the role of any particular member of the value networks. (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015; Vargo, 2009; Vargo and Lusch, 2014; Vargo et al., 2008).

Although service-dominant logic, often referred to as a mindset rather than a model or a theory, could serve as a concrete tool for supporting both managers and employees in their search for new customer-based approaches to value creation, it is often discarded due to various organizational barriers (e.g., an inability to sufficiently or appropriately change management practices). However, as this new thinking and behavior emerge, companies should learn how to devote less effort to producing goods (products) and devote more effort to building value relationships. (Nuutinen and Lappalainen, 2012). In so doing, the service-dominant logic offers a great stepping-stone for creating a better understanding of the roles and impacts of social media tools and methods in value creation and business modeling. In fact, the service-dominant logic clearly reflects each of the three key concepts of our study: (1) value creation, (2) value capture, and (3) business models. Value creation and value co-creation In academic literature, value creation most often refers to the value created for either users or companies. Bechmann and Lomborg (2013), for instance, describe several ways that companies can benefit and create value from user participation in social media, including (a) through networking, updating, and content contribution; (b) by contributing to company development and innovation; and (c) by selling the data gained from users’ digital information profiles.

The service-dominant logic type of value creation represents another stream of literature that emphasizes that value is always jointly and reciprocally co-created (see, e.g., Hirvonen and Helander, 2001; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation is, thus, conceptualized to take place between service systems, such that service system 1 (company) and service system 2 (customer) are connected by value propositions (Spohrer et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2008) and such that they both derive value (i.e., value-in-use) by integrating resources from their service systems.

Social media settings offer a fruitful basis for observing the changes emerging in value creation and value co-creation activities. Like the use of the service-dominant logic, the use of social media platforms and tools is based on an idea of continuously evolving and non-hierarchical collaboration among stakeholders, which may enhance new kinds of resource-integrating actions

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

among companies, their suppliers, and their customers (users). Hence, the major difference between value creation and value co-creation does not involve technology, but rather the strengthening of the interdependences among different actors so as to benefit them all. Unfortunately, value co-creation is often misleadingly used as a hypernym for all value creation activities. Business models and value capture Unlike value creation, which describes the overall aspects of a company´s value-creating processes and networks, the definition of value capture is restricted to the measured monetary benefits of a company’s value creating actions. Business models play a key role in determining how a company performs. A business model encases the resources and the entire architecture of a value proposition, which is the actual value proposition for the client, the description of a company’s position in the value network, and the company’s revenue model (Chanal and Caron-Fasan, 2008; Zott et al., 2011). Accordingly, a company cannot sustainably capture value unless it understands its entire value creation process.

Instead of explaining business models solely through individual activities (e.g., for marketing and R&D) or through mechanisms influencing business model outcomes (e.g., value chain, pricing, and networks), the recent research on business models highlights the development of holistic, multi-dimensional, system-level business model frameworks (Zott et al., 2011). Indeed, the shift from product-based thinking towards services and company networks also applies to business models. Furthermore, in more recent literature, these business models are often related to such areas as company-related processes and strategies (Wirtz et al., 2015). However, an urgent need for an in-depth understanding of the impacts of social media on business model development still exists (Klang et al., 2014).

Adopting the new forms of social business modeling, which refers to the utilization of social media tools and social value networks in all business domains of a company, demands a completely new kind of consciousness and activeness in the use of social value networks both inside and outside company borders. The service-dominant logic is certainly one good way to approach the analysis of social media-based mechanisms for value capturing and business modeling recently highlighted by both researchers and practitioners (Kunz and Werning, 2013; Sigala et al., 2012).

The methodology

Processing the literature review Following Fink’s (2005) process model for a systematic literature review, this literature review was accomplished in seven stages: 1) selecting research questions, 2) selecting the bibliographic or article database, 3) choosing search terms, 4) applying practical screening criteria, 5) applying methodological screening criteria, 6) doing the review, and 7) synthesizing the results.

First, we defined the research questions. Second, we selected the appropriate databases and chose the type of literature in which we were interested. To guarantee a comprehensive sample covering the most important data related to our research objectives, we used three large interdisciplinary databases: Scopus, EBSCO, and ABI-Inform. In our understanding, the combination of the chosen databases was diverse and multilayered, covering both business- and technology-related academic journals. As such, the review covered all of the different types of major journals affiliated with social media-related management issues, such as value creation and business models.

Third, we used three groups of search terms to find the most appropriate articles on social media-based business and/or value creation models: “social media” and “value creation;” “social media” and “value capture;” and “social media” and “business models.” When translating these terms into search strings, we used several keywords to cover “social media,” as perceived in earlier literature: “social media,” “Web 2.0,” and “enterprise 2.0.” To capture spelling differences, we also

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

included the different ways of spelling these terms: namely, “Web 2.0” and “Web2.0” and “enterprise 2.0” and “enterprise2.0.” Similarly, to cover various ways of spelling “value creation,” we used the following search strings: “value*” and “creat*” or “creat*” and “value*.” Likewise, we used the following search strings for “value capture:” ‘value*” and “capt*” or “capt*’ and “value*.” For “business model,” we used one search string: “business model.”

Fourth, we applied the practical screening criteria outlined in Table I, including only those studies that matched the inclusion criteria. We thus excluded a total of 92 articles that referred to social media and the other inclusion criteria but did not show evidence of studying and addressing these criteria as a central goal. We excluded studies that focused on public or non-profit organizations (e.g., public services ranging from higher education and e-learning to e-health, e-libraries and politics). Of the 92 excluded articles, 87 were identified as meeting the selection criteria during the practical screening, and the last 5 were identified when the articles from Scopus, EBSCO, and ABI-Inform were combined. The most common research settings that were excluded were related to e-learning and higher education or to e-libraries (including, in particular, studies published from 2007 to 2009).

Table I. Practical screening criteria

Inclusion criteria Type

Include only studies written in English Publication language Include studies focused on social media, web 2.0, or enterprise 2.0 Content Include studies focused on value creation, value capture, or business models Content Include studies conducted from January 2005 through the end of 2014 Duration of data collection Exclusion criteria Type

Exclude studies focused on public or non-profit organizations Exclude duplicates

Setting Content

Fifth, we applied the methodological screening criteria as follows: All possible research

designs (i.e., empirical, conceptual, and theoretical academic research papers) were included, thus ensuring a plausible and holistic view of the different aspects of the existing studies contributing to our research questions. Only conference proceedings, expert interviews, and non-academic research papers were excluded from this study. In total, 13 papers, including conference proceedings (3), papers based solely on expert interviews (2), and papers with non-scientific approaches to our research targets (8), were excluded during the practical screening of articles.

Sixth, due to differences between the search engines’ functional characteristics, the Scopus search strings were effectuated in two sections and the EBSCO and ABI-Inform search strings were effectuated in four sections. As a result, we collected 125 articles from Scopus, 230 articles from EBSCO, and 194 articles from ABI-Inform, for a total of 549 articles. These articles were then screened, and the number of papers decreased to 276: 125 from Scopus, 101 from EBSCO, and 50 from ABI-Inform. However, when the articles from the different search engines were combined through a number of separate search sections, it became clear that our data included several duplicates. Removing these duplicates resulted in 117 papers.

The in-depth examination of the remaining articles was based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. During this more intensive examination, some articles were determined to not fit our research focus (e.g., some focused on public or non-profit organizations). As a result, the number of articles again decreased, this time to 26 research papers. After thoroughly reading these 26 papers in full, we further excluded 4 papers, which did not match the inclusion criteria when examined in

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

more detail. The final number of articles for our review was thus reduced to 23 research papers. Most of the selected papers were published between 2010 and 2014.

The synthesis of the results was developed to 1) describe current knowledge about a topic or body of research, 2) support the need for and significance of new research, 3) explain research findings, and 4) describe the quality of a body of research. The methods and data sources used in the studies are described in Table III, and the research findings are explained in Tables IV and V. Table IV compares the various ways researchers studied the mechanisms behind social media-based value creation. Table V compares the papers’ investigations of the business models. The need for and significance of new research are discussed in the final chapter, which presents the discussions and further research directions. The 5C framework model In order to find ways to organize the reviewed literature and to enable the drawing of conclusions about our current understanding of value creation, several options were considered for: according to the type of business organization, in terms of possible revenue models (see Lee, 2011), or according to the various mechanisms for creating, capturing, and sharing value.

A framework adapting the 5C model (see Table II) by Vuori (2011) was developed, thus allowing us to observe whether or not an organisation has adopted service-based thinking or not. The 5C model facilitated the identification of five different social media functions within the studied organizations. Separate columns for value creation and value co-creation were added to Vuori’s (2011) model to serve as analysis dimensions to position existing studies based on their emphasis on product-oriented and/or service-oriented thinking (see Table IV).

It can be assumed that some of the functions of social media, such as communicating, collaborating, and completing, are better aligned with value co-creation, whereas other social media functions, such as connecting and combining, are more typical of value creation. However, there are differences in how companies make use of these social media functions. For instance, some companies may only use social media for one-way communications with customers (e.g., through broadcasting marketing material), whereas others may, for example, become engaged in dialogue with their customers in order to solve customer problems.

Table II. Examples of social media applications based on a 5C categorization (adapted from Vuori, 2011).

5C function Typical social media applications providing functionality

Purpose Collaborating: collectively creating content

Wikis, shared workspaces Create content together, collaborate, produsage

Web

1.0

!

!!

Web

2.0

Communicating: publishing and sharing content

Blogs, media sharing systems, discussion forums, micro blogs, instant messaging

Publish, discuss, express oneself, show opinions, share, influence, store

Completing: adding, describing, and filtering

Tagging, social bookmarking, syndications, add-ons

Add metadata, describe content, subscribe to updates, combine, experience serendipity

Connecting: networking

Social networks, communities, virtual worlds

Socialize, network, connect (sometimes also play, entertain)

Combining: mixing and matching

Mash-ups, platforms

Combine other tools and technologies according to situations and needs

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Results General remarks A wide variety of theoretical approaches and models were found among the reviewed studies. The emphasis was on empirical knowledge and approaches, with snapshot-like analyses of experienced value(s) in certain moments of time. Most of the studies analyzed areas offering easy access to empirical data, such as social media platform providers (e.g., LinkedIn, WordPress), content intermediaries and selling companies, and individually important business model parts, particularly the revenue models of related business models. Interestingly, the business model analyses were based solely on models that existed before the reign of social media, or even before the Internet.

About half of the studied articles (12 out of 23) focused on social media–based value creation, while the other half focused on social media business models (11 our of 23). Most focused on business-to-consumer markets, and many did not focus on any specific market. Only one study focused on a business-to-business market: namely, Baghdadi’s (2013) study of social commerce–oriented businesses.

Most of the articles were either theoretical or conceptual papers that lacked empirical data. The theories and models used in the studies varied greatly, ranging from task-technology fit and the long-tail concept to the resource-based view and the theory of planned behavior. No single theory was emphasized in the results; however, slight differences were observed in the methods and data used (see Table III). Whereas the majority (9 out of 11) of the empirical studies were grounded on qualitative research data, the majority (8 out of 12) of theoretical studies focused on the qualitative aspects of their research targets: that is, on identifying and describing the tools, theories, and assumptions related to social media use in organizational settings.

The most common methods used were literature reviews, interviews, and case studies, which complemented data from online communities, websites, company reports, and the news. The case study samples varied from 1 to 4 case companies (Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012) to 15 to 20 websites or platforms (Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Enders et al., 2008). Both single and multiple case studies were represented. Only two studies (Cortimiglia et al., 2011a; Horng, 2012) applied quantitative methods. Research methods specifically designed for studying social media and online communities, such as netnography and online observations, were rarely used (Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Pihl and Sandström, 2013; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012). The lack of consensus in terms of theories and models indicates the novelty of the studies’ research themes. Table III. Methods and data sources used in the studies

Methods (N) Authors

Literature-based model or concept development

12 Agnihotri et al., 2012; Baghdadi, 2013; Bechmann and Lomborg, 2013; Chen 2009; vanDijk and Nieborg, 2009; Hajli, 2013; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011; Lee, 2011; Merigó et al., 2013; Nath et al., 2010; Roblek et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2014

Statistical survey 2 Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Horng, 2012

Qualitative survey 1 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009

Netnography 1 Pihl and Sandström, 2013

Multiple case study 7 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Pihl and Sandström, 2013; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012; Wirtz et

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2014

Single case study 3 Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Shih et al., 2014

Data sources Authors

Interview 6 Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012; Wirtz et al., 2010

Online communities and platforms, blogs

6 Enders et al., 2008; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011; Lee, 2011; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Pihl and Sandström, 2013; Yuan et al. 2014

Websites (incl. YouTube) 5 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Wielki, 2010; Wirtz et al., 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012

Reports, statistics 4 Enders et al., 2008; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012;

News, press articles, public documents

4 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

Databases 1 Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

Altogether, 13 of the 23 articles focused either significantly or in essential areas on business models. The research interests varied from business and revenue model-related frameworks (Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Horng, 2012; Wirtz et al., 2010) and the creation of social commerce-oriented business model frameworks (Baghdadi, 2013) to existing business model frameworks, such as Osterwalder’s (2004, 2008) business model ontology or Wirtz’s 4C business model (see Wirtz, 2010).

Various types of business models, either facilitated or enabled by social media, were recognized and analyzed in the studies. Most of the observed business models had existed before the reign of Web 2.0 technologies or even before the rise of the Internet. Only Lee (2011) and Wielki (2010) identified business models that were either significantly social media-specific or that could not have existed without social media. Significantly, both of these authors also identified the existence of business-to-business-related business models, providing examples such as Dell’s and PSP Audioware’s business models. The emergence of value creation and value co-creation through social media activities As shown in Table IV, the value creation and value co-creation aspects of the articles were analyzed in two different ways: First, they were based on (a) the degree to which the articles described the social media mechanisms of value creation and value co-creation and (b) the extent to which the articles recognized the different roles of social media. Second, the 5C framework (see Vuori, 2011) was adapted to analyze the social media functions in more detail and to determine whether they showed any evidence of a company’s level of service orientation.

The symbol “ە” was used to indicate those studies that described the various social media roles and mechanisms of value creation or value co-creation in detail. The symbol “ۑ” was used to indicate studies in which the mechanisms of value co-creation or the roles of social media were mentioned, but not specifically described. The symbol “?” was used to indicate studies in which the social media-related value co-creation mechanisms and their corresponding social media roles were either ambiguously stated or open to various interpretations. Finally, the symbol “-” was used to indicate studies in which social media-based value creation or value co-creation mechanisms and their corresponding social media roles were not explicitly described.

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Table IV. The mechanisms behind social media-based value creation

Analysis of social media mechanisms impacting value creation and co-creation

Detailed analysis of the 5C social media functions of value creation (adapted from Vuori, 2011)

V

alue

cre

atio

n

Val

ue c

o-cr

eatio

n

Com

mun

icat

ion

Col

labo

ratin

g

Con

nect

ing

Com

plet

ing

Com

bini

ng

Agnihotri et al., 2013 ە

- - ە - ە ۑ

Baghdadi, 2013 ۑ ۑ ۑ - - - - Bechmann and Lomborg, 2013 ۑ - - - - - -

Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009 ۑ - ۑ - - - -

Chen, 2009 ۑ - ? - - - -

Cortimiglia et al., 2011 ۑ - ۑ - ۑ - -

vanDijk and Nieborg, 2009 - - - - - - -

Enders et al., 2008 ە ە - ە - ە - Hajli and Hajli, 2013 ۑ ۑ ۑ - - - -

Horng, 2012 - - ۑ - - - -

Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011 ە - ە - ە - -

Lee, 2011 ە ە ە ۑ ە ۑ ە Lehmkuhl and Jung, 2013 ۑ ۑ ۑ - ۑ ۑ ە Merigó et al., 2013 ە - ە - ە - - Nath et al., 2010 ۑ - ۑ ۑ ۑ - -

Pihl and Sandström, 2013 ۑ - ە - ە - -

Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010 ۑ - ۑ - ۑ - -

Roblek et al., 2013 ۑ - ۑ - - - -

Shih et al., 2014 ۑ - ۑ - ۑ - -

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Wielki, 2010 - - ۑ - ۑ - -

Wikström and Ellonen, 2012 ۑ - ۑ - - - -

Wirtz et al., 2010 ە - ە ۑ ۑ - -

Yuan et al., 2014 ۑ ە - ە ە ە -

Although value creation was extensively discussed in many of the articles, we noticed that the roles of value-related social media use were often analyzed in relation to communication (publishing and sharing content) and connection (networking with people). Only one study (Lee, 2011) was related to collaborative content creation (collaborating), with reference to a case in which Second Life was used for company-customer co-creation. Further, only a few studies analyzed the roles of social media in completion (connecting people and content) and combination (combining different types of content) (Enders et al., 2008; Lee, 2011; Lehmkuhl and Jung, 2013).

The studied themes related to research areas like value creation characteristics (2013) (e.g., in terms of efficiency, novelty, and complementarity), the phenomenon of social media-mediated lock-in effects (Lehmkuhl and Jung, 2013), the conceptualization of customer-perceived value (Agnihotri et al., 2012), social media’s relationship-related benefits (Möller and Törrönen, 2003; Walter et al., 2001), social media’s value creation potential for small- to medium-sized enterprises (Lehmkuhl and Jung, 2013), the effects of social media on business model components in traditional business organizations (Lee, 2011), and the business values associated with Web 2.0 technologies (Nath et al., 2009). In addition, a preliminary framework for understanding the impacts of social media use in customer support services (Agnihotri et al., 2012), an enterprise architecture for supporting social commerce through the actions of value co-creation (Baghdadi, 2013), and a 4C typology of Internet business models involving examples of how to co-create value when providing services (Wirtz et al., 2010) were presented. Finally, the importance of theoretical foundations and opportunities when co-creating value with customers in online communities was emphasized (Hajli and Hajli, 2013).

Overall, the value creation mechanisms of social media use were rarely analyzed, or, at least, these analyses were generic and superficial. The only exception was Yuan et al.’s (2014) introduction of a new resource mapping framework. This framework followed the principles of the service-dominant logic of Vargo et al. (2008) and included descriptions of company, customer, and encounter processes. It defined user-generated content as the primary resource of value co-creation and introduced a four-step pattern of value co-creation, demonstrating how the model reacted to negative word-of-mouth in customer service situations.

The appearance of social media-based, value-creating business models As shown in Table V, we also reviewed how and to what extent social media supported and facilitated the business models represented in the articles. Whereas only 4 of the 13 business model papers (Baghdadi, 2013; Enders et al., 2008; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012) executed in-depth analyses of actual social media mechanisms, most of the studies involved generic analyses from the specific standpoints of social media service provider companies. The descriptions of found revenue and business models included analyses of social media’s roles in supporting the major building blocks of business models (Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012), analyses of the social media mechanisms specifically supporting the revenue models of social networking sites (Enders et al., 2008) and concepts and frameworks for social commerce enabled by social media (Baghdadi, 2013). Only Lee (2011) incorporated the perspectives of both service providers and users.

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Lee’s (2011) categorization of six business model categories (i.e., the broad online community, the focused online community, social shopping, content intermediaries, the virtual world, and shared Web 2.0) emphasized the use of social media as the primary driver of revenue and, thus, corporate existence. According to Lee (2011), revenues are generated from different types of sources, such as subscriptions from premium services, banners, other advertisements, sponsors selling their products on the forum, sales commissions, and sales of virtual products. Altogether, Lee (2011) focused strongly on such service providers as Facebook, LinkedIn, Storenvy, eBay, Second Life, and Google Apps.

Wielki (2010) also recognized six business models that were at least partly based on and facilitated by social media. The first was characterized as a variation of the “long-tail” concept (see Anderson, 2006) allowing for the feasible delivery of products (e.g., Amazon or eBay) or software (e.g., Apple’s iTunes or AppStore) to small customer segments or even individual customers. The second was more clearly based on the essential features of social media and engaging users through the freemium model (i.e., getting a basic product or service for free, but paying for extended or enriched versions). As a result of these studies, Wirtz et al. (2010) proposed a framework of four broad factors (the 4Cs) fundamental to social media and the impacts of value creation: namely, social networking, interaction orientation, customization, and user-added value. This framework was illustrated with cases from MySpace and Wikipedia.

In studying the various parts of the business model, Cortimiglia et al. (2011) concluded that there is a clear link between the technological delivery channel and the preferable revenue channel; that is, the web channel is more appropriate for advertisement-based revenue models, while mobile technology opens up new and relevant opportunities for value appropriation. In accordance with the results of Cortigmilia et al. (2011), Kaplan and Haenlein (2011) explored how applications like Twitter can generate value for companies during the three stages of the marketing process (i.e., pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase) and provided detailed analyses of their five case companies (i.e., Google, Dell, Whole Foods Market, Zappos.com, JetBlue Airways). For example, Twitter was used to generate value by collecting feedback from customers (e.g., Dell), promoting products (e.g., Google, Whole Foods Market, JetBlue Airways), improving customer service and complaint management processes (e.g., Whole Foods Market, Dell, and JetBlue Airways), and enhancing internal communication (e.g., Zappos.com).

In the most recent papers, value creation was first analyzed in the context of fashion blogging (Pihl and Sandström, 2013), in which the focus was on the value relationships between fashion bloggers and end consumers. Second, it was analyzed in the context of microblogging and pharmaceutical services (see Yuan et al´s [2014] resource mapping framework for value co-creation in social media).

Table V. Business models and business model parts or frameworks related to social media Author(s)

Levels of analysis: Whole business model(s) ە Business model parts (which) ۑ Other: what

Name(s) of social media based business model(s)

Analysis of social media mechanisms impacting business models

Baghdadi, 2013 Other: factors that need to be taken into

consideration when building business models

ە -

Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009

Other: theoretical, implicating a need for new business model frameworks in the social media context

ۑ -

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Chen, 2009 ە - - Cortimiglia et al., 2011

ۑ - (revenue models) ۑEnders et al., 2008 ۑ (special focus on revenue models) Not named ە Horng, 2012 ۑ (subscription models) - ۑ Lee, 2011 ە (focus on revenue models) 1) Broad online

community, 2) focused online community, 3) social shopping, 4) content intermediary, 5) virtual world, 6) shared web 2.0

ۑ

Lehmkuhl, 2013 ۑ - ە Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

ە - ەShih et al., 2014 Other: Causalities behind increased cash

flows and revenues from fan base and loyalty

Fan-centric social media business model based on Berthon et al. (2012)

ۑ

Wielki, 2010 ە Not named ۑ Wikström et al., 2012

ە Not named ەWirtz et al., 2010 ە (special focus on value propositions

and revenue models)

ۑ -

Discussion and conclusions Various types of business models and revenue models were recognized and analyzed throughout the papers forming this literature review. Only two research papers (Lee, 2011; Wielki, 2010) identified significantly social media-specific business models, and the actual co-creation of value, as well as the potential roles and impacts of social media in new business model creation, were also largely unexamined. This strongly supports the findings of Gassman et al. (2015), who, after reviewing several hundreds of business model innovations, found that only about 10% of the innovations represented genuinely novel concepts. Empirical findings and framework analysis The most concrete and valuable finding of our study was the developed understanding that the commonly used research models and frameworks for observing the value creation mechanisms of Web 2.0 and social media applications are partially incomplete and fallacious. Indeed, we found that the 5C and 4C frameworks (see Vuori, 2011; Wirtz et al, 2010), for example, were unable to either distinguish or provide any in-depth analysis of the differences between the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 elements of actual value co-creation activities. Given this observation, it seems necessary to reframe existing research models and frameworks and to add more descriptive elements to broaden their scope of analysis in order to better understand all of the various Web 2.0 and social media implications to the collaborative value networks that connect companies, customers, and their stakeholders.

Updating the research models and frameworks for value (co-)creation will certainly shed new light on the research into the different bonds between revenue models and business model-

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

related value networks. Furthermore, it is essential to understand that the social media approaches used in business-to-consumer contexts are largely different from those used in business-to-business industries (Gillin and Schwartzman, 2010).

Only one study applying the service-dominant logic of thinking and acting was found (see Yuan et al 2014). The understanding of the self-contained, self-adjusting service ecosystems (see Lusch and Nambisan, 2015) seems thus almost non-existing in the current value creation and business model literature. Considering the common understanding of social media as a tool for community-based many-to-many collaborations, the scarcity of service-based thinking and the use of service-dominant logic even in the more recent studies was somewhat surprising. In particular, more research studying social media-based value creation and business model impacts on industrial companies and business-to-business manufacturers, in particular, is needed. Scientific implications and limitations of the study The lack of large-scale empirical studies limits our understanding of the differences and challenges related to inter-personal and inter-company networks and interactions, leading to a superficial view of the roles and impacts of social media on value co-creation and future business models. Including conference papers in our data search might have generated a more up-to-date understanding of current research topics, however it can be argued that the literature review does provide a comprehensive picture of the state-of-the-art.

The roles of various technologies in social media-based value creation should be further studied. For example, the combined roles of social media and mobile technologies, service-oriented architectures, and cloud computing in value creation should be investigated. Mobility can offer significant opportunities related to social media-related value creation, with an emphasis on the characteristics of non-traditional interactions among the members of value networks affected by social media.

The use of novel research approaches, such as agent-based or system dynamics simulations (see, for example, Okada and Yamamoto, 2011), as well as the use of longitudinal data and mixed methods, should also be encouraged. The use of research approaches directly designed to study social media and related communities, such as netnographic methods (see Kozinets, 2010) and social network analyses (e.g., Hansen et al., 2012; Wasserman, 1994), together with managerial interviews, should be encouraged, especially when studying the data-driven viewpoints of social media-based value creation. When combined with real-world empirical data, the use of novel approaches might provide more in-depth understanding of the major social media-related cause-and-effect relationships, ultimately leading to increased business value, revenue, or cost savings in the long run.

In addition, more research should be conducted within different types of companies and industries. In particular, the development of more and more complex digital business ecosystems and their related value co-creation processes might benefit from the study of the effects of the service-dominant logic type of thinking on the adoption of new mindsets and concepts. Above all, the existing models and frameworks studying the impacts of Web 2.0 and social media (see, for example, 5C and 4C) should be revised in order to reflect the service-dominant logic type of thinking. Implications for managers More attention should be given to developing an in-depth understanding of the functions and concrete value creation mechanisms of social media-based co-creation within the different organizational processes (e.g., in product and service development and customer services). Giving more attention to emergent, but evolving theoretical approaches, such as the service-dominant logic, might offer a good starting point to companies interested in adopting new, innovative, social media-based value (co)-creation tools and operation models.

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

REFERENCES An, J., and Weber, I. (2015), “Whom should we sense in “social sensing”-analyzing which users work best for social media now-casting”. EPJ Data Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-22. Agnihotri, R., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R. and Singh, R. (2012), "Bringing 'social' into sales: the impact of salespeople’s social media use on service behaviors and value creation". Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 333–348. Anderson, C. (2006), The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, 1st ed., Hyperion, New York, NY. Baghdadi, Y. (2013), "From e-commerce to social commerce: a framework to guide enabling cloud computing". Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 12–38. Bechmann, A. and Lomborg, S. (2013), "Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation", New Media & Society, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 765–781. Bjørn-Andersen, N., Rasmussen, L.B. and Rasmussen, S. (2009), "Web 2.0 adoption by Danish newspapers—urgent need for new business models?", Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 692–703. Chanal, V. and Caron-Fasan, M.-L. (2008), "How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspirit® case", in Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, pp. 1–27. Chen, T. F. (2009), "Building a platform of business model 2.0 to creating real business value with Web 2.0 for Web information services industry". International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 168-180. Chesbrough, H. (2010), "Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers", Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 354–363. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002), "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies". Industrial and corporate change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 529–555. Choi, H., and Varian, H. (2012), "Predicting the present with Google Trends". Economic Record, Vol 88, No. 1, pp. 2-9. Cortimiglia, N.M., Ghezzi, A. and Renga, F. (2011), "Social applications: revenue models, delivery channels, and critical success factors—an exploratory study and evidence from the spanish-speaking market". Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 18–19. vanDijk, J. and Nieborg, D. (2009), "Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos". New Media & Society, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 855-874. Enders, A., Hungenberg, H., Denker, H.-P. and Mauch, S. (2008), "The long tail of social networking: revenue models of social networking sites". European Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 199–211. Fink, A. (1998), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the Internet. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A. and Storbacka K. (2015), "Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation", British Journal of Management, Vol 26, No. 3, pp. 463-483. Gassman, O., Frankenberger, K. and Csik, M. (2015), The Business Model Navigator: 55 Models That Will Revolutionise Your Business, 2nd ed., FT Press, USA Gillin, P. and Schwartzman, E. (2010), Social marketing to the business customer: Listen to your B2B market, generate major account leads, and build client relationships, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Godlevskaja, O., van Iwaarden, J. and van der Wiele, T. (2011), "Moving from product-based to service-based business strategies: Services categorisation schemes for the automotive industry". Inernational. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 62–94. Granovetter, M. (1983), "The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited". Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, pp. 201–233. Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2012), "Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 133–150. Hajli, M. and Hajli, M. (2013), "Organisational development in sport: co-creation of value through social capital". Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 283–288. Hansen, D.L., Rotman, D., Bonsignore, E., Milic-Frayling, N., Rodrigues, E.M., Smith, M., (2012), " Do you know the way to SNA?: A process model for analyzing and visualizing social media data", in 2012 International Conference on Social Informatics (SocialInformatics), IEEE, pp. 304-313. He, W., Schen, J., Tian, X., Li, X., Akula, V., Yan, G. and Tao, R. (2015), "Gaining competitive intelligence from social media data. Evidence from two largest retail chains in the world". Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 1622–1636. Hirvonen, P. and Helander, N. (2001), "Towards joint value creation processes in professional services". The TQM Magement, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 281–291. Horng, S.-M. (2012), "A study of the factors influencing users’ decisions to pay for Web 2.0 subscription services". Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23, No. 7-8, pp. 891–912. Jussila, J. (2015). "Social Media in Business-to-Business Companies' Innovation". thesis for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology,Tampere University of Technology. Publication; 1333. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2011), "The early bird catches the news: nine things you should know about micro-blogging". Business Horizons, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 105–113. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media". Business Horizons, Vol. 53, No. 1, 59–68. Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. (2011), "Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media". Business Horizons, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Special Issue: Social Media), pp. 241–251. Kitchin, R. (2014), "The data revolution. Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences". SAGE Publication Ltd., New Delhi. Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M. and Hacklin, F. (2014), "The business model paradox: a systematic review and exploration of antecedents". International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 454–478. Kozinets, R.V. (2010), "Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online." SAGE Publications Ltd., London. Kunz, R. and Werning, S. (2013), "Media management and social media business: New forms of value creation in the context of increasingly interconnected media applications", in Handbook of Social Media Management, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 253–267. Lazer, D., Pentland A., Adamic L., Aral S., Barabási A-L., Brewer D., Christakis, N, Contractor N., Fowler J., Gutmann M., Jebara T., King, G., Macy M., Roy, D. and Van Alstyne M. (2009), "Computational social science", Science, Vol. 323, pp. 721-723. Lampos, V., and Cristianini, N. (2012), "Nowcasting events from the social web with statistical learning". ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 72. Lee, I. (2011), "Overview of emerging web 2.0-based business models and web 2.0 applications in businesses: an ecological perspective". International Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 1–16. Lehmkuhl, T. and Jung, R. (2013), "Value creation potential of web 2.0 for SME—insights and lessons learnt from a European producer of consumer electronics". International Journal of

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 1340003. Lucsh, R.F. and Nambisan S. (2015), "Service-innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective". MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 155-175. Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J.C. (2013), "A service science perspective on business model innovation". Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, pp. 665-670. Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013), Big data. A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think, 1st ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY. Merigó, J.M., Rocha, C. and Garcia-Agreda, S. (2013), "Entrepreneurial intervention in electronic markets: the influence of customer participation". International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 521–529. Mithas, S., Lee, M.R., Earley, S. and Murugesan, S. (2013), "Leveraging big data and business analytics", IT Professional, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 18–20. Möller, K.E. and Törrönen, P. (2003), "Business suppliers’ value creation potential: A capability-based analysis", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 109–118. Nath, A.K., Singh, R. and Iyer, L. (2009), "Web 2.0: capabilities, business value and strategic practice", in Proceedings of American Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2009. pp. 22-39 Nilsson, E. and Ballantyne, D. (2014), "Reexamining the place of servicescape in marketing: a service-dominant logic perspective", Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 374–379. Nuutinen, M. and Lappalainen, I. (2012), "Towards service-oriented organisational culture in manufacturing companies". International Journal of Quality and Service Science, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 137–155. Okada, I. and Yamamoto, H. (2011), "Effects of information diffusion in online word-of-mouth communication among consumers". Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 197–203. Osterwalder, A. (2004), The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science Approach. Dissertation, University of Lausanne, Switzerland: 15 (2004) Osterwalder, A. (2008), Business Model Canvas. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. Pihl, C. and Sandström, C. (2013), "Value creation and appropriation in social media—the case of fashion bloggers in Sweden". International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 309–323. Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), "Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation". Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 5–14. Ramdani, B. and Rajwani, T. (2010), "Enterprise 2.0: The case of British telecom". Journal of Strategic Management Education, Vol. 6, No. 2, 135–148. Roblek, V., Bach, M. P., Meško, M. and Bertoncelj, A. (2013), "The impact of social media to value added in knowledge-based industries". Kybernetes, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 554-568. Shih, C-C., Lin T. M. Y. and Luarn, P. (2014), "Fan-centric social media: The Xiaomi phenomenon in China". Business Horizons, Vol 57, pp. 349-358. Sigala, M., Christou, E. and Gretzel, U. (2012), Social Media in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality: Theory, Practice and Cases, Asgate Publishing Ltd., Farnham, UK. Singaraju, S. P., Nguyen, Q. A., Niininen, O., & Sullivan-Mort, G. (2016). "Social media and value co-creation in multi-stakeholder systems: A resource integration approach". Industrial Marketing Management. In press. Spaulding, T.J. (2010), "How can virtual communities create value for business?" Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 38–49. Spohrer, J., Vargo, S.L., Caswell, N., Maglio, P.P. (2008), "The service system is the basic abstraction of service science", in Proceedings of the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, IEEE, pp. 104–104. Tuarob, S. and Tucker, C. S. (2013), "Fad or here to stay: predicting product market adaptation and longevity using large scale, social media data" in Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2013, Portland, Oregon, USA. Tørning, K., Jaffari, Z. and Vatrapu, R. (2015), "Current challenges in social media management", in Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on social media & society, ACM, Toronto, Canada. Vargo, S.L. (2009), "Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant logic perspective". Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 5-6, pp. 373–379. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 1–17. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2014), Service-Dominant Logic. Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), "On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective". European Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 145–152. Vatrapu, R. (2013), Understanding Social Media, in Emerging Dimensions of Technology Management. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., New Delhi, pp. 147–158. Vuori, V. (2011), "Social media changing the competitive intelligence process: elicitation of employees’ competitive knowledge", thesis for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland. Walter, A., Ritter, T., Gemünden, H.G. (2001), "Value creation in buyer–seller relationships: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective". Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 365–377. Wang, C., Zhang, P. (2012), "The evolution of social commerce: The people, management, technology, and information dimensions". Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 31., article 5. Wang, X., White, L., Chen, X. (2015), "Big data research for the knowledge economy: past, present, and future". Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115, No. 9, guest editorial. Wasserman, S. (1994), Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge university press, Cambridge. Wielki, J. (2010), "The impact of the Internet on the development of web-based business models". Journal of Internetional Banking and Commerence, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 1–9. Wikström, P., Ellonen, H.-K. (2012), "The Impact of Social Media Features on Print Media Firms’ Online Business Models". Journal of Media Business Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 63–80. Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., Göttel, V. (2015), Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning. In press. Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., and Ullrich, S. (2010), "Strategic development of business models: implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet". Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 272–290. Yuan, Q., Cai, S., Zhou, P. (2014), "A resource mapping framework for value co-creation in social media". International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 25–39. Zott, Christoph, Amit, Raphael, Massa, L. (2011), "The business model: Recent developments and future research". Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1018–1042.

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Social Media-Based Value Creation and Business Models Table I. Practical screening criteria

Inclusion criteria Type

Include only studies written in English Publication language Include studies focused on social media, web 2.0, or enterprise 2.0 Content Include studies focused on value creation, value capture, or business models Content Include studies conducted from January 2005 through the end of 2014 Duration of data collection Exclusion criteria Type

Exclude studies focused on public or non-profit organizations Exclude duplicates

Setting Content

Table II. Examples of social media applications based on a 5C categorization (adapted from Vuori, 2011).

5C function Typical social media applications providing functionality

Purpose !Collaborating: collectively creating content

Wikis, shared workspaces Create content together, collaborate, produsage

W

eb 1

.0

!

!!

Web

2.0

Communicating: publishing and sharing content

Blogs, media sharing systems, discussion forums, micro blogs, instant messaging

Publish, discuss, express oneself, show opinions, share, influence, store

Completing: adding, describing, and filtering

Tagging, social bookmarking, syndications, add-ons

Add metadata, describe content, subscribe to updates, combine, experience serendipity

Connecting: networking

Social networks, communities, virtual worlds

Socialize, network, connect (sometimes also play, entertain)

Combining: mixing and matching

Mash-ups, platforms

Combine other tools and technologies according to situations and needs

Table III. Methods and data sources used in the studies

Methods (N) Authors

Literature-based model or concept development

12 Agnihotri et al., 2012; Baghdadi, 2013; Bechmann and Lomborg, 2013; Chen 2009; vanDijk and Nieborg, 2009; Hajli, 2013; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011; Lee, 2011; Merigó et al., 2013; Nath et al., 2010; Roblek et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2014

Statistical survey 2 Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Horng, 2012

Qualitative survey 1 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009

Netnography 1 Pihl and Sandström, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Multiple case study 7 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Pihl and Sandström, 2013; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012; Wirtz et

al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2014

Single case study 3 Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Shih et al., 2014

Data sources Authors

Interview 6 Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012; Wirtz et al., 2010

Online communities and platforms, blogs

6 Enders et al., 2008; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011; Lee, 2011; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Pihl and Sandström, 2013; Yuan et al. 2014

Websites (incl. YouTube) 5 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Wielki, 2010; Wirtz et al., 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012

Reports, statistics 4 Enders et al., 2008; Lehmkuhl, 2013; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010; Wikström and Ellonen, 2012;

News, press articles, public documents

4 Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009; Cortimiglia et al., 2011; Enders et al., 2008; Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

Databases 1 Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

Table IV. The mechanisms behind social media-based value creation

Analysis of social media mechanisms impacting value creation and co-creation

Detailed analysis of the 5C social media functions of value creation (adapted from Vuori, 2011)

V

alu

e cr

eati

on

V

alu

e co

-cre

atio

n

Com

mun

icat

ion

Coll

abora

ting

Co

nnec

tin

g

Com

ple

tin

g

Com

bin

ing

Agnihotri et al., 2013

’

— ’ - ’ - -

Baghdadi, 2013 — — — - - - -

Bechmann and Lomborg, 2013 — - - - - - -

Bjørn-Andersen et al., 2009 — - — - - - -

Chen, 2009 — - ? - - - -

Cortimiglia et al., 2011 — - — - — - -

vanDijk and Nieborg, 2009 - - - - - - -

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Enders et al., 2008 ’ - ’ - ’ ’ -

Hajli and Hajli, 2013 — — — - - - -

Horng, 2012 - - — - - - -

Kaplan and Haenlein, 2011 ’ - ’ - ’ - -

Lee, 2011 ’ — ’ — ’ ’ ’

Lehmkuhl and Jung, 2013 ’ — — - — — —

Merigó et al., 2013 ’ - ’ - ’ - -

Nath et al., 2010 — — — - — - -

Pihl and Sandström, 2013 ’ - ’ - — - -

Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010 — - — - — - -

Roblek et al., 2013 — - — - - - -

Shih et al., 2014 — - — - — - -

Wielki, 2010 - - — - — - -

Wikström and Ellonen, 2012 — - — - - - -

Wirtz et al., 2010 — — ’ - ’ - -

Yuan et al., 2014 ’ ’ ’ - ’ — -

Table V. Business models and business model parts or frameworks related to social media Author(s)

Levels of analysis:

Whole business model(s) ’

Business model parts (which) — Other: what

Name(s) of social media based business model(s)

Analysis of social media mechanisms impacting business models

Baghdadi, 2013 Other: factors that need to be taken into

consideration when building business models

- ’ Bjørn-Andersen et

al., 2009 Other: theoretical, implicating a need for new business model frameworks in the social media context

- — Chen, 2009 ’ - -

Cortimiglia et al., 2011

— (revenue models) - —

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)

Enders et al., 2008 — (special focus on revenue models) Not named ’ Horng, 2012 — (subscription models) - — Lee, 2011 ’ (focus on revenue models) 1) Broad online

community, 2) focused online community, 3) social shopping, 4) content intermediary, 5) virtual world, 6) shared web 2.0

—

Lehmkuhl, 2013 ’ - — Ramdani and Rajwani, 2010

’ - ’ Shih et al., 2014 Other: Causalities behind increased cash

flows and revenues from fan base and loyalty

Fan-centric social media business model based on Berthon et al. (2012)

— Wielki, 2010 ’ Not named — Wikström et al., 2012

’ Not named ’ Wirtz et al., 2010 ’ (special focus on value propositions

and revenue models)

- —

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

AM

PERE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

TECH

NO

LOG

Y A

t 02:

16 2

2 Ju

ly 2

016

(PT)